Conservation Allies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843985727
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Warrenton, VA, USA
Phone
2023614410
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Natural Resources Conservation and Protection

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,170,441
Expenses
$3,534,484
Assets
$1,719,674
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Paul Salaman (President)
  • Caitlin Eschmann (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Paul Salaman (President): $191,939 total reported compensation
  • Caitlin Eschmann (Executive Director): $133,138 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote the conservation of biological diversity throughout the world.

What it reported doing in 2025

Conservation Allies funded local NGOs across Africa to effectively protect national parks and other protected areas. By providing targeted funding and support Conservation Allies enables these organizations to enhance their conservation initiatives enforce measures against nature crime and promote sustainable management of natural resources. This funding helps local NGOs conduct fire prevention and stop deforestation support family planning initiatives and enhance community engagement programs. Through these efforts Conservation Allies aims to preserve Africas rich biodiversity safeguard endangered species and ensure the long-term health of vital ecosystems. The work fosters collaboration with local communities and partners to create resilient protected areas that benefit both wildlife and people.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 40
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 96.7%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: $54.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Pass
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.5%; rating input score 95; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.2%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 42.5% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 41% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 43.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.2% of revenue deployed · 96.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 11 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 43 of 45 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule G fundraiser detail did not reconcile in the filed values.